What does "the scientific community" consist of? Does it include any sis day creationists who believ there was no death in the animal kingdom before Adam's sin?
And what does it mean "to utterly reject" some group such as "the scientific community"?
If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?
- Thread starter PaulThomson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What does "the scientific community" consist of? Does it include any sis day creationists who believ there was no death in the animal kingdom before Adam's sin?
And what does it mean "to utterly reject" some group such as "the scientific community"?
Jesus called Peter "Satan," because Peter did something that was Satan's modus operandi.
Likewise for the King of Tyrus.
Satan had access to God in heaven in the time of Job. Ay some point he was cast down and no longer has access to heaven. According to Zec, 3, Satan was there in heaven to accuse the resurrected Jesus before Jesus was justified by God and restored to His former glory and position.
Jesus was speaking prophetically,
Luk 10:18 And he said (εἶπεν δὲ) to them (αὐτοῖς ), I was perceiving (Ἐθεώρουν, imperfect active indicative) the Satan (τὸν Σατανᾶν) as lightning (ὡς ἀστραπὴν) out of the heaven (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) fallen (πεσόντα, aorist active participle).
The aorist form of the verb is timeless. It does not alone establish the time of the event,, There must be other contextual time markers to establish the action at a particular time.
TheOreO means to observe as a spectator. It is in the imperfect tense. It is aorogressive action if the past - I was observing.
pesonta is the aorist active participle of piptO to fall. It does not necessarily mean to be cast out or down. One can fall without being thrown down.
I think Jesus was in a vision in the Spirit observing Satan losing his confidence, losing his footing in heaven, as His disciples were casting out demons and healing those oppressed of the devil. I don'r think Satan was yet (in Luke10:18) cast out of heaven and down to the earth to be limited to the bounds of the earth's atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
As of 2014, nearly all (around 98%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity[1] with, as of 2009, some 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.
My point here is not that we should accept the 2014 apparent consensus supporting evolution. Rather, it is the dominance of the evidence of an Old Earth that causes scientists generally to draw upon evolution as the reason for the appearance of diverse species of creatures over time. If there was no consensus on the old age of the earth, evolution could never have been given as a model.
Creation isn't something that scientists, who generally are not solid Christians, would put their faith in. They would rather tend to be agnostic about biblical truth, even if they had a modicum of faith.
But when it comes to the expertise of scientists, which is testing, it isn't a matter of conjecture. It involves the objective realities stemming from actual scientific testing. That's what you appear to reject, if you believe in 6 literal days and that there is no evidence animals died and were fossilized well before Man was created.
With that in mind....
Satan was a certain kind of angel.
He was a light bearing angel. A "Morning star."
Not all angels were morning stars. Job
Job 38:6-7
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
His light ability was so great he could herald in the mornings in the prehistoric world.
When he rebelled? And as a result was thrown down from heaven?
Because of his tremendous light bearing ability?
What was seen shooting down through the sky appeared just like lightning.
IMHO.....
it seems to me you have forgotten that the angels were created an indeterminately long time before man was.
they sang together watching Genesis 1:3-31 happen
IMO, the prince of Tyre was the human king of Tyre (Ez. 28:2). The King of Tyre was the spiritual ruler over the kingdom of Tyre (Ez. 28:12).
Falling, and being cast down, are not the same thing. I can fall from a cliff because of losing my footing by my failure to maintain my balance. Or I can be cast down from off a cliff by someone else stronger than me.
So now, there was time before this world was created? We are never told when the angels were created.
Also, one could have been a 1,000,000 year old angel and still have been commissioned to minister to mankind on the new earth.
It is unclear what your point is.
the point is,
we know the angels were created long before man, and that God does not create in vain, so they have a purpose that has nothing at all to do with man.
we know Satan was a federal head over an Eden that doesn't resemble Eden after Genesis 1:2
we know Satan was cast down - having fallen - after a sin which had nothing at all to do with mankind ((if there even was a mankind)), but having to do with his own pride, his lust for the power of God, and his decieving many angels.
we know of two times the earth was covered with water, and of one of those times, we know explicitly that it was judgement of grievous sin. the first time, we aren't told, but because we aren't stupid, we know it's connected to the time about which we are told.
these things, we know because the scripture tells us.
but out of thin air - with no scriptural basis at all - you are saying Satan's purpose was to serve man. seems a bit humanistic of you, to me, and does not seem to be consistent with the things we know.
my point is, believing God to be ignorant leads a person to a lack of understanding - - no, more, an absolute incapability of understanding of the things omniscient God has done.
